Wait a Minute!!!Does or Doesn't Bush Believe In Iraq's Role in 9/11??

The White House......CNN ^ | 3/19/03..9/18/03 | White House & CNN

[cyncooper]

There was a time when freepers distrusted big government/Wilsonian politicians. Now....they believe everything and anything uttered by these same politicians, that is if they are Republicans.

Well, I discern who is trustworthy based on several criteria and I have concluded that VP Cheney has credibility.

[nutmeg]

.

[cyncooper]

Have fun at the football games. Hope whoever you're rooting for is better than our teams these days (U of A Wildcats for college, and the Packers for NFL----oh, dear! They're both having awful seasons so far).

[ctonious]

If a 'Rat was in office during 9/11 - and there was strong evidence that Atta met with a high-level Iraqi in Praque before the attack - he would have sent hundreds of missiles into Iraq - and also bombed the Czech republic from 15,000 feet - until enough innocent civilians in both countries paid the price. Isn't that the usual cowardly 'Rat way of "fighting" terrorism?

The Bush administration is constrained by integrity though - and 'Rats are too stupid to understand this, and that "No Evidence" does NOT mean absolution.

[eyespysomething]

I suspect you are a true believer in everything Dubya has done since 9-11 including the steel tariffs and the education bill, right? He knows best after all.

I know this wasn't directed toward me, but I would like to comment.

I am very very very disappointed with the spending the entire Federal gov't is doing. The Medicare presciption bill, his education reform

(in our county, our property taxes just got raised AGAIN, this is 60% in 2 years, and our school system is in the bottom 10% of Georgia, which is the 50th state in test scores, so we are in the bottom 10% of the nation, yet our teachers get paid the most in the state, avg. $45,000, and we are now spending an avg. of $12,000 per student - YIKES),

his tariffs, and all the pork spending that is being done, even being condoned since "that is how it's done". I am disapointed that Ed Gillespie, head of the RNC, has said that the Republican Party is no longer the party of smaller government. I am extremely cynical when it comes to the Federal government. BUT

I have no doubt that President Bush is doing the right thing in the WOT, and has done the right thing in Iraq. As carton253 says in this post:
I'm under the impression that all terrorists are like wasps from the same nest. It is fruitless and pointless to try to figure out which wasp stung us and which wasp did not. Destroy the nest and every wasp you find in the nest. 98 posted on 08/19/2003 9:19 AM EDT by carton253.

Sorry I don't have a link to the thread.

[GeorgiaYankee]

bookmark

[WillowyDame]

Now that the original scam is starting to take on water as more people question it, the administration is playing duck and cover to make it all old news before next year

bush has never linked 9-11 to saddam. that why i don't get the cnn's happy camper attitude about getting bush to say there is no evidence of that.
this was not a scam, bush truly believed that saddam was a threat and he is right.

bush will be nuts if he will make up stuff and get american kids killed and put the economy in a messed up state. so i do't believe it was a SCAM at all.

[cyborg]

No disrespect to you, but I don't believe that different kind of war crap. Saudi Arabia blatantly funds terrorism BUT they're still our friends? Whatever. Most of the 9-11 bombers were Saudis right? So why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia if we are so serious about the war on terrorism? I wish Bush would get his facts straight. If Saddamy wasn't connected with 9-11 then why are we there in the first place? Even if he has ties to Al Qeda, so does Saudi Arabia. I like consistency.

I'm not saying the US should go around the world and attack every terrorist group at once. However, War on Terrorism is disingenuous. War on what KIND of terrorism? Is he going after the IRA next? Or Robert Mugabe?

[cyborg]

I would like to see consistency as well. It would make it much easier to defend Dubya against his detractors.

[Austin Willard Wright]

No offense intended but you are using the compartmentalization theory so beloved by the Clintonites. I think it is more logical to conclude that if Dubya is not trustworthy in domestic policy (i.e. refuses to implement smaller government as originally promised), he can not be trusted in foreign policy. Dubya is only one man, after all. He doesn't suddenly change his character and views when he puts on his "WOT hat."

[ctonious]

At some point we have to wade into the dangerous waters of pragmatism versus 1st grade strategery. 1st grade strategery says "I will wait 'til somebody hits me over the head before I do anything." This applied to governing the national electorate means only the most blatantly obvious of justifications can be used - and only if the chowder-headed electorate understands it.

The murky and slippery waters of pragmatism says - "I don't care if my comatose brethren can't see the dangers - I will hype some of the more obvious things - and hopefully get them to support me doing the things that are done in their own best interest." This is dangerous since it can lead to lies, obfuscation and secrecy - in the name of "I can't do the right thing if I can't stay in power."

But I always thought the most dangerous phase of this democracy would come when it was technologically possible to have a True Direct Democracy - but not the wisdom or knowledge of events to go with that. We seem to think that since Gallup can instantly ask us what we should do about a particular brain surgery operation - that we are qualified to be listened to.

Does that mean we should trust a person to do things in our best interest without nosing into all the details? Damn straight - it's called Representative Democracy - and we used to do that. But not without oversight. The trick is to trust the person doing the governing - that he has the correct motivations, and that he knows what the hell he's doing.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Hell, Saddam openly and repeatedly boasted about his support of international terrorism!

[lowbridge]

Certainly, one of our former members was murdered on 9/11.

Two of them (that we know of so far): BCM (49th Battalion Chief John Moran), and BKO (Barbra Olson)

[xm177e2]

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Do you see the "including those?" He did not assert that Saddam aided in 9/11, he merely asserted that Saddam has links to terrorist groups (which is undeniably true). The resolution authorizes Bush to go after ANY terrorists, ANYWHERE, not just the ones who attacked us on 9/11.

Bush has never said Saddam was involved in 9/11. At most he has said that Saddam has aided al-Qaida, which is almost certainly true.

[joesbucks]

Sow which nations among "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001" have we taken on?

[joesbucks]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/984730/posts

[Rokke]

Does Afghanistan ring a bell???

[joesbucks]

So why did the president say "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11"

[joesbucks]

Well, yes it did, however the President's letter to the speaker was dated March 19, 2003, just a tad after we went into Afghanistan. Who have we invaded to stop terror since the letter was written with links to 9/11?

[ctonious]

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Do you see the "including those?" He did not assert that Saddam aided in 9/11, he merely asserted that Saddam has links to terrorist groups (which is undeniably true). The resolution authorizes Bush to go after ANY terrorists, ANYWHERE, not just the ones who attacked us on 9/11.

Correct. Let's dispense with this silly criticism once and for all. If Bush had actually been speaking extemporaneously, the use of the phrase "including those" would be meant to emphasize whatever follows. That's common practice when SPEAKING. But Bush was quoting a law - as laws are written (does that verbiage sound like Bush-speak?) - and in the interest of completeness - he apparently quoted the entire damn passage (maybe he coulda left it out). And unfortunately, the last part inadvertently implies that Iraq had something directly to do with 9/11 (although it still might have).